chuckwoww Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Saturation bombing seems to be the default option. Supposed to be an alternative to nuclear I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Maybe it makes the politicians feel good. Gives them a sense of power by killing the "enemy" in large numbers without risking their own lives. Of course, the US bombers in Europe had the highest casualty rate of any American forces in WWII, even higher than the Marines at places like Tarawa and Iwo Jima. Those old bombers flew almost a mile high in unpressurised cabins, and if a plane was hit you were damned lucky to get out as it tumbled and fell to the earth (no ejection seats). I had a close friend who had been a radioman-waist gunner on a B-17 and he always talked about how cold it was in the air. You wore all the clothes you had when you flew and had electrically heated gloves to keep your hands warm enough to use. Every now and then you'd slip a glove into your trousers to keep your gonads from freezing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 The crews took a lot more risks in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 My friend was about 19 at the time. He died a few years ago, really a good guy. He said their sergeant told them when they were in flight training, "Don't think you're gonna be heroes. You're gonna be killing women and children." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 Saturation bombing didn't do much in WWII either. I've read arguments that the saturation bombing of Germany's cities and towns did not shorten the war by a single day. The Blitz of London only made the English more determined to fight on. Why should the Germans have been any different? WWII probably was won by the fire bombs. Japan probably was defeated after Japan was fire bombed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 The "think tank" in Washington DC did an extensive computer analysis as to, if bombing could win the war...answer came back , no. The Whitehouse and all the military knew of the study but ignored it. When they bombed VN, the VC went over into Laos to avoid the bombs. When they bombed a bridge, they would rebuild it, literally, overnight! When the Green Beret were first sent to VN, they were tasked to build schools and win the people over and they were doing just that!! Pres. Johnson wasn't going to have "fighting men" doing that so it got canceled...we could go on and on and on about all the fark ups...it was a war that the USA did about everything possible so they would not win, IMO. The "Wall" in DC says it all and then some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 US Special Forces were indeed defeating the Viet Cong. That's why Hanoi openly sent in the NV Army. From the contact I had with Southern civilians, I'd say they may not have been thrilled with their government - but they were just plain frightened of Hanoi. People tend to forget that a million had fled the North when the communists took over there. It is thought another half million would have fled as well, but the communists stopped them. And no they were NOT all Roman Catholics, as the anti-war protestors loved to claim. Most who fled were Buddhists. I used to want to frag the protestors when I was back in the States, because they were so ignorant and full of BS. They weren't anti-war, many were just plain pro-communist. They refused to judge Hanoi for anything it did, but were oh so critical of Saigon. The double standard was sickening. And God forbid the protestors should ever do anything for someone else - say join the Peace Corps or VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) and work in Appalachia or on an Indian reservation. I remember how much I despised the hypocritical arseholes. Notice how anti-war protests have all but ceased, now that no one need worry about being conscripted and sent to fight anymore. Coincidence, do you suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 Most of the protestors had their head where the sun didn't shine, IMO. Problem was, many (some?) of the points they brought up were true, like what rich boy or connected kid was on the front lines in VN? There were all too many REMFs in VN, looked good on the resume and they got that extra pay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 Al Gore (Senator's son) - 6 months in Nam, never under fire. John Kerry (Skull & Boner) - 4 months in Nam (and a pocketful of medals for acts that would have got an enlisted man nothing). Me (nobody in particular, WWII corporal's son) - 13 months in Nam, under fire 50+ times, an assortment of consolation medals. Do you mean there was discrimination in the military? Just because GWB went to airman's basic (a whole six weeks) and got commissioned out of it doesn't mean anything special. He was a great trainee! Nor that Dan Quayle was allowed to enlist in an Army National Guard company that was already about 120% over strength. I tried to get a Navy commission and was told the Navy did not need any more officers. But they took John Kerry fast enough. As the BGs say, "You tink too mutt." Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 He had me at "metha-amphetamine". What the fuck is that? and 1/3 addicted? Bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.